Everyone keeps talking about transparency in SIGN like that settles the hard part. I do not think it does. A public log shows what changed. It does not tell me who had the power to change it. Who holds upgrade authority? Are the keys inside the jurisdiction using the system, or somewhere else? Do governments relying on it get an actual seat in breaking changes, or just a transaction history after the fact? Is sovereignty here a governance reality, or a documentation tone? The record being on-chain matters. But if control over the next version sits elsewhere, what exactly is the government sovereign over?

@SignOfficial #signdigitalsovereigninfra $SIGN